Berkeley DB-4.8.26

[Randy McMurchy]

Version increment to catch up with the LFS version.

The caveat is that this hoses and totally breaks our OpenLDAP installation. We still use the 'stable' version of LDAP in the book, and this DB upgrade is not compatible.

In fact, not until the OpenLDAP folks determine that the 2.4 series is the stable version, this bug cannot be fixed. The best I can tell from everything I've read is that the 2.3 series will never support DB-4.6. I could be mistaken, but that is the best I got out of the limited research I did.

[alexander@…]

If this is really so, please file a major bug against LFS, so that they downgrade.

[bdubbs@…]

I think we should upgrade OpenLDAP to the current release version - 2.4.9 unless we have specific known problems with it. I think that would fix the consistency problem with the Berkeley DB-4.6 issue.

The older 'stable' OpenLDAP version was released last November and 2.4.9 is dated February.

From the OpenLDAP FAQ:

"Most users should use "release" (general use) versions.

Users should start with the then current "release" version and, when upgrade is appropriate, upgrade to then current "release".

It may not be necessary (or even desirable) to upgrade upon announcment of each new "release", but users should consider upgrading whenever the version they installed is older than the current "stable" release. Versions older than current "stable" release are known to be less reliable."

[Randy McMurchy]

I'm not sure if Bruce has changed his mind, or if he thinks our policy is dated, or what, but he has turned 180 degrees on this one. The last time this very same exact issue was discussed, Bruce opted for the "stable" version.

Now Bruce is opting for what the OpenLDAP folks say is not their stable version. Nothing has changed, other than this issue with Berkeley-DB. Here's the thread: ​http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2005-August/010927.html

Regardless, one man's opinion does not policy make, and we should always try to do what is best for the book/project as a whole. I lean towards the 2.4 series as well. I'll think about this one as there is no real big rush to update.

I want to be careful that we don't just abandon our very good policy of using maintainer's stable versions, unless there's really good reason not to (no stable releases any longer, security issues, UTF8 compatibility, et all).

I don't want to set precedent (again) with still another package using other than stable version. However, it very well could be that OpenLDAP, with it's multiple "production" releases, can truly be called an exception to the policy.

One problem to this approach is the quickness with which OpenLDAP is released. It is a very fast release-to-release cycle, and I don't think we can keep up in a timely manner. Using the stable releases at least afford us to be current for a few months at a time, instead of a few weeks.

This Berkeley-DB dilemma could very well be the turning point in the decision making process.

[thomas]

OpenLDAP Stable Release

The OpenLDAP Software stable release is the last release which has proven through general use to be the most reliable release available. OpenLDAP-2.4.11, as of 20080813, is considered stable.

Isn't that statement on the OpenLDAP-page the indicator that 2.4 series is stable (now)?

[thomas]

...uhh, bdb version is 4.7.25 now

[Randy McMurchy]

Version increment to 4.7.25 to catch with LFS. Not sure about the LDAP issue.

Changed to a "blocker" until the LDAP issue is resolved.

[Stefan Morrell]

OpenLDAP 2.4.12 works with BDB 4.7

See also #2578

[Randy McMurchy]

This is now a huge update as BDB is no longer in LFS. Most (if not all) of the old BDB refereces in the book are simply commented out, so putting them back should be easy.

Ensuring that BDB works with all of BLFS is a huge task. Think Heimdal and MIT Kerberos.

[willimm]

Replying to randy@…:

This is now a huge update as BDB is no longer in LFS. Most (if not all) of the old BDB refereces in the book are simply commented out, so putting them back should be easy.

Um, that's a lie, as BDB is still built in LFS.

To prove it, I have the BDB page in LFS:

​http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/db.html

[Randy McMurchy]

Modified milestone from 6.4 to 6.5

[Randy McMurchy]

Download from ​http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/db/index.html

[willimm]

This hasen't been updated in a while...

Anyway, new version, 4.8.24. Don't know how OpenLDAP is treating that version (and I don't really care, as I just build the client libs). And, the rpc server is totaly gone, so the --enable-rpc config parm should be removed. Patch comming shortly...

[willimm]

Bad news: BDB 4.8.24 does not work with 2.6.16 or 2.6.18. We should have the latest version, yet it's busting OpenLDAP. I give up...

[Randy McMurchy]

Version increment to 4.8.26

​http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/index.html

It doesn't look like there where *changes* to the API/ABI; however, there were additions, which should not be a factor. Google shows Python won't discover it, but Python has a patch. Must check this against OpenLDAP and Kerberos.

[Randy McMurchy]

So far I've tested Python with the patch, Sendmail, Heimdal Kerberos, and OpenLDAP.

All seem to work fine with the new Berkeley. I'm going to update and if there is breakage down the road we will address it then.

[Randy McMurchy]

Updated BLFS to Berkeley-DB-4.8.26

[(none)]

Milestone 6.5 deleted